Insights

U.S. acquisitions hidden risks: AI and cybersecurity, key employees and immigration, state-by-state compliance

U.S. Acquisitions: Hidden Risks

U.S. Acquisitions: Hidden Risks 1536 1024 Michael Vaz D'Almeida

Michael Vaz d’Almeida, Partner at Nilson Law Group, recently contributed to Inspir’, MEDEF Paris’s magazine, for its special issue, “Relation transatlantique : l’avenir en partage” (“Transatlantic Relations: A Shared Future”). Drawing on our perspective as a bilingual French-English law firm based in New York, his article explores the often-overlooked risks of acquiring a U.S. business.

Acquiring a company requires due diligence that goes beyond financial statements and contracts. Risks involving technology, employees, and state-specific regulations may not appear on a balance sheet but can significantly affect a company’s value and the success of a transaction. The article highlights three areas that deserve particular attention:

  • AI and cybersecurity. Buyers should understand which AI tools the target company uses, what data it shares with those tools, and the resulting risks to intellectual property, confidential information, and trade secrets. Cybersecurity reviews should assess security measures, past incidents, insurance coverage, and incident response capabilities.
  • Key employees and immigration. A business may depend heavily on a few individuals whose departure could disrupt operations. Due diligence should examine retention arrangements, confidentiality protections, and whether employees with employer-sponsored visas can maintain their immigration status after the transaction.
  • State-by-state compliance. The United States should not be treated as a single, uniform legal market. Employment laws and other requirements vary across states, and remote employees can create additional compliance obligations. Gaps, such as missing required workers’ compensation coverage, can expose a business to penalties, increase transaction costs, or delay closing.

The central takeaway: Effective due diligence combines document review with detailed questionnaires and direct discussions with the seller to understand how the business actually operates. Identifying less obvious risks early helps buyers assess value accurately and negotiate appropriate contractual protections.

Read the full article in French in Inspir’ (page 86).

New York employers personnel record access requirements take effect November 8, 2026

New York Employers: New Personnel Record Access Requirements Take Effect November 8, 2026

New York Employers: New Personnel Record Access Requirements Take Effect November 8, 2026 1672 941 Marie O'Brien

Author: Marie O’Brien

On September 9, 2026, Governor Hochul signed legislation adding Section 210-b to the New York Labor Law, giving current and former New York employees new rights to access their personnel records. New York City has no separate generally applicable requirement, so Section 210-b applies there as it does elsewhere in the State. Effective November 8, 2026, Section 210-b also imposes new notice, recordkeeping, and response obligations on employers.

What does Section 210-b cover?

Section 210-b broadly defines a “personnel record” as any record identifying an employee that is or may be used in connection with employment qualifications, promotion, transfer, compensation, or disciplinary action, including records maintained by third parties on the employer’s behalf. Personnel records include, among other things, job applications and resumes, job titles and descriptions, compensation information, performance evaluations, written warnings, probationary-period records, termination notices, and other disciplinary records.

What are the key requirements for employers?

Beginning November 8, New York employers will be required to:

  • Notify employees within 10 calendar days after placing information in their personnel record that is or may be used to negatively affect employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or disciplinary action;
  • Provide current and former employees, upon written request from such current or former employees, with a copy of their personnel records, at no cost to the employee, within 5 business days;
  • Permit employees to review their personnel records up to twice per calendar year. A review resulting from the placement of negative information in the file does not count toward this limit;
  • Allow employees to dispute information in their records. If the employer and employee cannot agree on a correction or removal, the employee may submit a written statement explaining their position, which becomes part of the personnel record and generally must accompany the disputed information when transmitted to a third party (such as a prospective employer); and
  • Retain complete personnel records throughout employment and for 3 years following termination, without deleting or expunging information except as permitted by Section 210-b.

Violations may result in fines ranging from $500 to $2,500, and Section 210-b prohibits retaliation against employees for exercising their rights. The New York Attorney General is responsible for enforcement.

What should employers do now?

Employers with New York employees should use the period before November 8 to review their personnel-record practices. In particular, employers should:

  • Identify and centralize records that may constitute personnel records under Section 210-b, including records maintained by managers or third-party service providers, for current employees and former employees whose employment ended within the past three years;
  • Establish a process for responding to requests within the required 5-business-day period, including designating the person or team responsible for receiving requests and reviewing records before production;
  • Consider issuing guidance or updating an employee handbook or policy to explain how requests should be submitted and who will handle requests for review, correction, or removal of information;
  • Implement procedures to identify negative information added to personnel records and provide the required notice to employees;
  • Review record-retention practices to ensure personnel records are preserved for the required 3-year post-termination period, while also accounting for any longer retention obligations under other applicable laws or litigation holds; and
  • Prepare for an initial increase in requests from both current and former employees, particularly from individuals involved in performance management, disciplinary matters, workplace complaints, or recent terminations.

The Nilson Law Group is available to assist employers in drafting, reviewing and updating their personnel record policies and procedures and preparing for compliance before November 8, 2026.

This newsletter is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Its contents should not be relied upon without obtaining advice tailored to your specific circumstances. Please contact us with any questions.

Online meeting with four participants and AI-generated prompts displayed on both sides to support note-taking and discussion

Before You Invite an AI Note Taker to a Legal Meeting: What Clients Should Know

Before You Invite an AI Note Taker to a Legal Meeting: What Clients Should Know 1672 941 Emmanuelle Molina, Charlotte Vaudoit

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are quickly becoming part of everyday business. AI note takers, transcription tools, and meeting assistants can be especially useful. They allow participants to focus on the conversation instead of taking detailed notes, they can generate transcripts, summaries, and action items after the meeting.

But when a meeting involves legal advice, these tools can create risks that are easy to overlook. The convenience of an AI note-taker may come at the cost of confidentiality, privacy, and attorney-client privilege.

Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and their attorney made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. In practical terms, it can allow a client to refuse disclosure of protected communications in litigation, during a deposition, in response to a subpoena, or in connection with a discovery request.

The privilege, however, is not automatic in every situation. One of its key requirements is confidentiality. If a privileged conversation is shared with people outside the attorney-client relationship, recorded without proper safeguards, saved in a broadly accessible folder, or transmitted to a third-party vendor, or uploaded to an AI tool hosted by a third-party provider, the privilege may be weakened or challenged. This risk is particularly significant if the AI vendor’s terms of service permit data sharing, storage, or use for model training, especially when using low-cost or publicly available AI tools with permissive privacy policies.

AI note takers and recording assistants may seem harmless. Often, they quietly join a Zoom, Teams, or Google Meet call and operate in the background. But in a legal meeting, the tool may function like an outside participant. Depending on how the tool works, the meeting audio, transcript, summary, or notes may be uploaded, stored, analyzed, shared, reviewed, or retained by a third-party provider. That can raise difficult questions about who had access to the information and whether the legal discussion remained confidential.

Recent litigation highlights these concerns. In Brewer v. Otter.ai Inc., No. 5:25-cv-06911, filed in the Northern District of California on August 15, 2025, the plaintiff alleged that an AI notetaking application recorded and transcribed conversations without proper consent from all participants. The allegations in that case focus on privacy and consent, but the dispute illustrates a broader point: companies should understand exactly how these tools collect, store, use, and share meeting information before allowing them into sensitive conversations.

Courts are also beginning to address how privilege applies when individuals use public AI tools in legal contexts. In United States v. Heppner, the court held that materials a criminal defendant created using the free, consumer version of Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. United States v. Heppner, 820 F. Supp. 3d 292 (2026). The court focused on traditional privilege principles, including confidentiality, attorney involvement, and whether the materials were created within a protected attorney-client relationship.

The takeaway is not that all AI tools are the same. They are not. Public, consumer-facing AI chatbots raise different issues than enterprise AI tools or closed systems that incorporate strong confidentiality protections. A fully local AI tool that does not transmit information outside the company may raise fewer concerns about disclosure to third parties. AI agents that interact with multiple platforms may require a more detailed review. AI note takers and recording tools fall somewhere in between: the privilege analysis often depends on the vendor’s terms, data practices, confidentiality obligations, access controls, and the purpose of the meeting.

Clients should be especially careful in common situations such as:

  • an AI assistant automatically joining a meeting with counsel;
  • recording or transcribing a legal strategy call without first discussing it with the attorney;
  • automatically distributing a transcript or meeting summary to participants;
  • saving AI-generated notes or recordings in a shared company workspace or other location accessible to individuals outside the attorney-client relationship;
  • forwarding AI-generated summaries to colleagues, consultants, or other third parties who are not necessary to the legal representation; or
  • responding to discovery requests, subpoenas, or government investigations that may require production of AI-generated recordings, transcripts, or summaries.

AI tools can be useful, but convenience should not come at the expense of confidentiality. Before using an AI note taker in a legal meeting, stop and ask: Could this affect privilege or expose sensitive information? When in doubt, consult your attorney first.

 

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice regarding your specific situation, you should consult a qualified attorney who can provide guidance tailored to your individual circumstances.

Workplace Violence Prevention Plan-image

Annual WVPP Review & Training Deadline Approaching for Covered California Employers

Annual WVPP Review & Training Deadline Approaching for Covered California Employers 512 768 Michael Vaz D'Almeida

If you are already doing business in California, you probably know about California Senate Bill 553 (SB 553) – signed into law on September 30, 2023 – that imposes mandatory workplace violence prevention obligations on most employers operating in California. The law is enforced through the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) and applies broadly to covered employers, with only narrow exceptions.

Who is a Covered Employer?

SB 553 applies to all California employers except those employers, employees or places of employment which meet the following requirements:

  • Places of employment where (i) fewer than 10 employees are present at the workplace at any given time, (ii) such workplace is not accessible to the public, and (iii) the workplace is in compliance with the requirement to establish, implement, and maintain an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, §3203; or
  • Employees work remotely from a location of their choice that is not controlled by the employer; or
  • Certain health care, law enforcement, and correctional facilities under the statute.

If your organization does not fall within a specified exemption, your organization is considered a covered employer and must comply with SB 553.

Initial Compliance Deadline Passed.

As of July 1, 2024, all covered employers were required to: (i) establish and implement a written Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP); (ii) provide effective employee training on the WVPP and when new hazards or plan changes arise; (iii) maintain a violent incident log; and (iv) create and retain records of all training, incident investigations, and hazard correction actions (most for at least five years).

If your organization has not yet taken these initial steps it should act immediately. Cal/OSHA has authority to inspect workplaces, issue citations, and impose monetary penalties—ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per violation, depending on the classification (e.g., general, serious, or willful).

Annual Compliance Requirements Coming Up Soon.

Covered employers must now prepare to meet the law’s first annual compliance deadline. By July 1, 2025, covered employers must: (i) review the WVPP for effectiveness and update it, if necessary; (ii) retrain employees on the WVPP and applicable legal requirements; and (iii) provide supplemental training for any new hazards or changes to the WVPP.

Conducting timely reviews and updates not only ensures compliance but also strengthens workplace safety and reduces liability exposure.

If you are unsure whether your organization is a covered employer or need help with WVPP compliance, employee training, or recordkeeping obligations, our team is here to assist.

 

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice regarding your specific situation, you should consult a qualified attorney who can provide guidance tailored to your individual circumstances.

Corporate Transparency Act 2024: Don’t Miss the Deadline to File your Beneficial Ownership Information Report

Corporate Transparency Act 2024: Don’t Miss the Deadline to File your Beneficial Ownership Information Report 474 316 Nancy Maurice

The deadline to file your beneficial ownership information report (“BOI Report”), January 1, 2025 (or, if your company was created this year, within 90 days of creating this entity), is fast approaching.

Pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act 2024, all companies created or registered in the U.S. must file their BOI Report with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), unless they fit under one of its limited exemptions. Failure to submit your BOI Report may result in civil fines of $500 per day of non-compliance and criminal penalties of up to a $10,000 fine and/or 2 years in jail.

If you would like for Nilson law to assist you with the creation of your BOI Report, or to see if your company falls under an exemption, please contact us without delay at compliance@nilsonlaw.com. We offer a flat fee to help you identify your beneficial owners, and to prepare and file your BOI Report with FinCEN.

To ensure timely compliance with the mandatory requirements of the CTA, we strongly encourage you to contact us early to avoid any technical issues due to a higher volume of filings towards the end of the year.

Corporate Transparency Act 2024Compliance standards policies rules regulations

Doing Business in the U.S.: Stay Tuned for the Corporate Transparency Act 2024

Doing Business in the U.S.: Stay Tuned for the Corporate Transparency Act 2024 1000 600 Nancy Maurice

Starting on January 1st, 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) will introduce new reporting requirements that may affect your company. These changes come as the U.S. government seeks to enhance corporate transparency and curb illicit financial activities facilitated through anonymous shell companies.

We have provided a concise overview below to help you understand the key components of the CTA and its potential impact on your business. We hope you will find this recap useful.

Your Business Might be a Reporting Company

The scope of the CTA is broad, which means that your business is likely to be subject to these new reporting requirements. Reporting companies include both domestic and foreign entities (corporations, LLCs, and similar private entities) created or registered to conduct business in the U.S. There are some exceptions, such as entities that employ more than 20 US-based employees, have filed US federal tax returns demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales, and have an actual office within the United States.

Beneficial Ownership Reporting

Reporting Companies will have to disclose information about their beneficial owners—individuals who exercise “substantial control” (directly or indirectly) over the company or own or control at least 25% ownership interest in said company. Criteria for “substantial control” include:

  • Serving as a senior officer.
  • Exercising authority over senior officers or a majority of the board.
  • Having significant influence over company decisions.
  • Any other forms of substantial control.

Reporting Requirements and Process

Reporting Companies will have to provide information about both the company itself and each individual who is a beneficial owner of the company.

  • Company Information: Full legal name, any trade or d/b/a name, address of the principal place of business in the U.S., jurisdiction of formation, and federal taxpayer ID number.
  • Beneficial Owner Information: The individual’s name, date of birth, residential address, unique identifying number (from a U.S. or non-expired foreign passport), and a copy of this document.

Though detailed forms are yet to be released, reports will primarily be submitted electronically through a FinCEN portal. FinCEN is currently developing secure and confidential systems to facilitate and protect this information exchange, ensuring it remains inaccessible to the public.

Non-compliance penalties include civil fines of $500 per day of non-compliance and criminal penalties of up to a $10,000 fine or 2 years in jail.

Timeline for Compliance

  • Existing Companies: Entities created or registered in the U.S. before January 1, 2024 will have a full year, until January 1, 2025, to comply with the CTA by filing their initial report.
  • New Companies: Entities created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, will have to file their initial report within 30 days of creation or registration in the U.S.

We’re Here to Support You

We understand that new regulatory requirements can be complex. Our dedicated team is closely monitoring the developments and is ready to assist you in navigating through these requirements.

ADA compliance

Don’t Get Sued! Check Your Website for ADA Compliance

Don’t Get Sued! Check Your Website for ADA Compliance 1000 568 Cynthia Martens

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal law, requires businesses open to the public to be accessible to all patrons, including those with disabilities. Many courts, and state legislatures, have interpreted this obligation to extend to business websites, which must take into account the needs of consumers with disabilities. Failure to be ADA-compliant exposes businesses to costly lawsuits or settlements, since individuals and groups can sue directly and recover attorneys’ fees – and there are some very aggressive lawyers embracing the ADA cause. Making a good-faith effort in this area protects you from legal risk while allowing you to serve a broader range of customers whose needs are frequently unmet.

Consult with specialized web technicians to ensure that your site meets appropriate standards. You’ll want, for example, to make your website available to blind people and others with disabilities that affect their ability to read a computer display, by adding text equivalents to imagery, and posting documents in formats that function well with assistive technology.

As always, we are here to answer any questions.

ADA compliance

New York City to Require Vaccination for Private Sector Employees

New York City to Require Vaccination for Private Sector Employees 500 350 Charity Gates

Employees working in-person for private employers in New York City must have received at least one dose of an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine by December 27. The new measure, introduced by outgoing mayor Bill de Blasio, provides exemptions for sincerely-held religious beliefs and valid medical reasons, but does not provide a testing alternative. An application for an accommodation must be made by December 27th.

Employers must verify and keep a record of each in-person employee’s proof of vaccination by December 27. There are 3 options for how employers can meet this requirement:

  1. An employee’s copy of their proof of vaccination or a record of a reasonable accommodation with supporting documentation;
  2. Employers can create their own paper or electronic record that includes identifying information for each employee (i.e. name, whether fully vaccinated, proof of first dose, or record of reasonable accommodation);
  3. Employers may check each employee’s proof of vaccination before they enter the workplace each day. They must keep a record of each verification. [This option may be more suitable for larger employers].

By December 27, employers must complete the “Affirmation of Compliance with Workplace Vaccination Requirements” affirming they are in compliance with this requirement and post it in a public place.

Also, please note that each contractor who enters the workplace is subject to the vaccination requirement as well.

 Additionally, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order requiring either masks or vaccines in public venues (including workplaces) in New York state.

As always, we are here to answer any questions.

Covid-19 background

COVID-19: What Should Employers Know About Legal Protection for Workers?

COVID-19: What Should Employers Know About Legal Protection for Workers? 1920 1080 Cynthia Martens

The coronavirus pandemic has upended the year for people from Wuhan to Milan. New York City alone now has almost 100,000 confirmed cases and all nonessential businesses, including many in the fashion sector, have shuttered since March 22 in response to orders from the state governor and a collective effort to “flatten the curve” of coronavirus infections.

Workplace consequences have been dramatic. Last week, the federal Labor Department reported that a record 6.6 million Americans had filed for unemployment insurance, bringing the total number of people who have filed for unemployment in the last three weeks alone to almost 17 million. Reports of employers mistreating nurses and retail workers have trickled onto social media, and newly enacted federal laws provide various forms of emergency relief.

James Brudney, a professor at Fordham University School of Law with extensive experience in employment and international labor law, stressed the importance for employers, particularly larger brands, of “doing the right thing by their workers and in reputational terms, not just the barely legal thing.”

Referring to recent walkouts by Amazon warehouse workers protesting conditions of unsafe exposure to the virus, he said employment lawsuits based on job-related illness and death are likely, just as they were common post 9/11. In fact, there already has been one case filed in Illinois by the survivors of a late Walmart employee who claimed he died due to catching the virus at his workplace.

“One would hope that in these circumstances employers, who are also obviously suffering, would have the sense of both compassion and justice not to be taking retaliatory steps against workers who are trying to protect their fundamental safety and health in tough conditions,” said Brudney, adding that exposure to the coronavirus at work could lead to sizable state workers’ compensation claims. He recommended more generally that employers consult the International Labour Organization’s COVID-19 recommendations as well as Convention 177 on protections for home workers, saying that they provide a useful crisis benchmark for the fashion industry.

In this challenging context, what else should employers know? The interplay between federal and state laws, and between the President and state governors, is confusing to many American employers, and even more so to foreign companies doing business in the United States. Some important issues to get straight at the outset are:

Are my employees at-will? Are they exempt or non-exempt?

Most states consider employment to be at-will by default, meaning that either the employer or the employee can end the relationship at any time, with or without cause or notice. However, before letting anyone go or changing any terms of employment, employers must check whether they are bound by a contract with their employees instead. Employers should also know whether their employees are exempt or non-exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Employees whose jobs do not meet the FLSA definition or who make less than $674 a week are non-exempt under federal law and must earn overtime pay. States and cities can raise the minimum amount, so that, for example, an employee must earn at least $1,125 a week in New York City to be exempt.

Can I reduce my employees’ hours?

Employers are allowed to reduce the number of hours their non-exempt employees are scheduled to work. Providing reasonable notice is considered good practice, though there is no federal requirement to do so and state laws vary. In California, for instance, notice is important to avoid “reporting time pay” obligations, which employers trigger when they schedule workers but don’t have enough work for them to do because of inadequate planning or lack of proper notice.

Can I reduce my employees’ pay?

Employers can never reduce pay rates for hours already worked; any changes must be prospective. That said, absent a contract, employers are free to reduce employee pay for future hours worked, as long as they pay at least the minimum wage, which varies by state and sometimes by city. For example, federal law sets the floor at $7.25, but while California’s minimum wage is $12 a hour, it’s $15 an hour in San Francisco. In addition, some states impose notice requirements. New York State requires employers to inform employees at least seven calendar days before changing their pay rate, unless the new rates appear explicitly on wage statements. Reducing an employee’s pay can change the employee’s status from exempt to non-exempt.

Can I treat my employees differently?

Reducing some salaries during a period of financial difficulty is legal as long as employers do not discriminate against a protected class under federal or state law. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on gender, race, national origin and age, but some states or municipalities go further. New York City, for example, prohibits treating employees differently based on their “age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, domestic violence victim status, or any other protected characteristic under the New York State Human Rights Law.”

“If your reduced hours or furloughs disproportionately affect women, or racial minorities, or older workers, there’s likely to be an effort at some point to organize those workers in litigation terms, or at least it’s a risk that you run,” said Brudney. “You have to be sure you have an evaluation system that can justify what you’re doing so that it doesn’t look discriminatory or arbitrary.” Such a system could include records of past performance evaluations or bonuses, for instance.

What’s a furlough?

An employee furlough occurs when an employer suspends its workforce without pay. Caution: If exempt employees do any work at all while on furlough, the employer must pay them the equivalent of a full day’s salary, and if hourly employees work while on furlough, the employer must pay them for the time worked. Furloughed employees usually retain their health benefits and return to work either on a specific date or when a specific condition is met. Employers should note, however, that furloughs come with the risk that top talent will seek employment elsewhere. A furloughed employee may be eligible for unemployment benefits, depending on state rules.

What unemployment benefits are available to laid-off workers?

Individual states normally manage unemployment insurance benefits and determine eligibility criteria and exclusions. The $2 trillion federal CARES Act passed on March 27 creates two major benefit categories, however. First, there’s Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, which covers individuals — including freelancers and those who are sick or caring for a sick family member — who are unable to work because of the coronavirus outbreak. Secondly, unemployed individuals who are already receiving state benefits are eligible for $600 a week in additional federal aid over the next four months, until July 31.

What is a shared work program?

State shared work programs make it easier for participating employers to keep trained staff during an economic slowdown by allowing employees to receive partial unemployment insurance benefits while working reduced hours. To participate in a shared work program, employers must meet state requirements — typically, a minimum number of employees working in the state, and a certain amount of unemployment contributions over the past year — and submit a shared work plan for state approval. Participating employers may not hire new employees to perform work covered in the plan and must seek plan approval from any relevant collective bargaining representative.

What sort of paid leave do I have to pay my employees during the COVID-19 health crisis?

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act guarantees job-protected paid leave to workers who are unable to work from home and subject to a federal, state or municipal order of quarantine or isolation for COVID-19, or caring for minor children who are under such an order. The amount of paid leave available to employees depends on the size of the business as of Jan. 1, with different rules for small, mid-sized and larger businesses. All must provide their employees with job protection for the duration of the quarantine or isolation order, but larger businesses must provide more days of paid sick leave. When employees return from their COVID-19-related leave, employers must reinstate them to the same or a comparable position and continue to provide health insurance on the same terms as if the employee had not taken leave.

What sort of paid sick leave do I have to offer?

Until the FFCRA was passed, no federally mandated paid sick leave existed, though some states required it. Federal law now allows an eligible employee to take paid sick leave because the employee is in quarantine related to COVID-19, or caring for someone who is, or unable to work remotely because he or she is caring for a child whose childcare provider is closed because of COVID-19. Employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide full-time employees with 80 hours of paid sick leave at the employees’ regular rate (or two-thirds the employees’ regular rate for caregiving employees). Paid sick leave wages are capped at $511 a day, or $5,110 total, per employee for personal use, and $200 a day, or $2,000 total, per employee caring for another. Sick leave pay rates for employees who work a part-time or irregular schedule are based on the average number of hours the employee worked for the six months prior to taking leave. If employees have worked less than six months prior to taking leave, they calculate their rate based on their average scheduled hours over a two-week period.

Cynthia Martens is an associate at The Nilson Law Group, PLLC in New York. She was previously a WWD correspondent in Milan. This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

Originally published in Women’s Wear Daily

Employment law background

Several Important Changes to New York Employment Law in 2020

Several Important Changes to New York Employment Law in 2020 1920 1080 Nicholas E. Forgione

Minimum Wage Increases

• Minimum wage increases continue to be phased-in each year. As of January 1, 2020, the minimum wage in New York City is $15.00 per hour. In Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties, it is $13.00 per hour. In the remainder of the state, it is $11.80 per hour.

Salary History Ban

• In 2017, New York City amended its Human Rights Law to prohibit inquiries into applicants’ salary histories during the hiring process. Effective January 6, 2020, New York state expanded on the New York City law by prohibiting employers from requesting such information of applicants or employees. The law does not prohibit applicants and current employees from voluntarily, and without prompting, disclosing or verifying wage or salary history, such as for the purpose of negotiating wages or salary.

Paid Voting Leave

• With primary and general elections occurring in 2020, employers should be mindful of recent revisions of New York’s election law, which now entitles New York employees who are registered voters up to three hours of paid time off as needed to vote in any election. Employees requiring time off to vote must be afforded such time at either the beginning or end of a workday, at the employer’s election, and must notify their employer of their need not less than two working days before the election.

Continued sexual harassment prevention

• Employers should keep in mind that New York City requirements for employee anti-sexual harassment training are annual requirements.
• On August 12, 2020, the statute of limitations for sexual harassment claims will increase from one year to three years.

Ban on pre-employment marijuana testing

• Effective May 10, 2020, New York City will prohibit employers from conducting pre-employment drug testing for marijuana. Exceptions will apply for certain types of jobs, including various construction and maintenance roles, positions requiring a commercial driver’s license, and positions requiring the supervision or care of children, medical patients, or vulnerable persons.

Expanded protections for “gig” workers

• Effective January 11, 2020, the New York City Human Rights Law will cover freelancers and independent contractors, extending protections from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The prohibition on pre?offer criminal background checks and pre?offer salary history inquiries will also apply to freelancers and independent contractors.

The Nilson Law Group, PLLC The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.